2025-11-19T16:10:13.333480

Condensations with extra properties

Juhász, van Mill, Soukup
We show that there are locally compact spaces that can be condensed onto separable spaces but not onto compact separable spaces. We also show that for every cardinal $κ$ there is a locally compact topological group of cardinality $2^κ$ that can be condensed onto a compact space but not onto a compact topological group. These answer some questions of Arhangel'skii and Buzyakova.
academic

Condensations with Extra Properties

Basic Information

  • Paper ID: 2511.13850
  • Title: Condensations with Extra Properties
  • Authors: István Juhász, Jan van Mill, Lajos Soukup
  • Classification: math.GN (General Topology)
  • Publication Date: November 17, 2025 (arXiv preprint)
  • Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.13850
  • Author Affiliations: HUN-REN Alfréd Rényi Institute of Mathematics (Juhász, Soukup); University of Amsterdam (van Mill)

Abstract

This paper proves that there exist locally compact spaces that condense onto separable spaces but cannot condense onto compact separable spaces. Simultaneously, it is shown that for each cardinal κ, there exists a locally compact topological group of cardinality 2^κ that condenses onto a compact space but cannot condense onto a compact topological group. These results answer several questions posed by Arhangel'skii and Buzyakova.

Research Background and Motivation

Research Questions

This paper investigates the condensation problem for topological spaces. A condensation is a continuous bijection f: X → Y from space X to space Y. For topological spaces, the existence of a condensation onto a space Y with certain properties is equivalent to X admitting a coarser topology satisfying those properties.

Importance of the Problem

  1. Theoretical Significance: Condensation is a fundamental concept in topology, related to the refinement of topological structures. In functional analysis, various weak topologies provide natural examples of important coarser topologies.
  2. Classical Results: A classical result by Parhomenko 15 establishes that every locally compact non-compact space admits a compact condensation. This provides the foundation for studying condensations with additional properties.
  3. Open Problems: Arhangel'skii and Buzyakova posed several questions in 1 concerning condensations of ordered spaces and their subspaces, particularly:
    • Question 2.7: If a locally compact space X condenses onto a separable space, can X condense onto a compact separable space?
    • Question 2.8 (compact case): If a locally compact topological group G condenses onto a compact space, can G condense onto a compact topological group?

Limitations of Existing Research

Although the literature on condensations is quite extensive, systematic studies of condensations that preserve specific topological properties (such as separability, compactness, and group structure) remain incomplete. In particular, the question of when condensations with multiple properties exist has not been fully answered.

Core Contributions

The main contributions of this paper include:

  1. Negative Answer to Question 2.7: Construction of a locally compact space that condenses onto a separable space but cannot condense onto a compact separable space.
  2. Negative Answer to the Compact Case of Question 2.8: For each cardinal κ, construction of a locally compact topological group of cardinality 2^κ that condenses onto a compact space but cannot condense onto a compact topological group.
  3. Positive Results: Establishment of criteria for when topological sums X = ⊕_{α<κ} X_α can condense onto separable or compact separable spaces (Theorems 3.1 and 3.2).
  4. Set-Theoretic Analysis: Deep analysis of set-theoretic consistency results in the discrete space case, revealing the complex structure of the set S of cardinalities of compact separable spaces.

Methodology Details

Task Definition

Formal Definition of Condensation:

  • Input: Topological space X
  • Output: Topological space Y and continuous bijection f: X → Y
  • Constraint: Y must satisfy specific topological properties (separability, compactness, topological group structure, etc.)

Key Concept:

  • Spaces X and Y are somewhere homeomorphic: there exist non-empty open sets U ∈ τ_X and V ∈ τ_Y such that U and V are homeomorphic.

Core Technical Methods

1. Positive Result: Condensation Criterion for Topological Sums (Theorem 3.1)

Theorem 3.1: Suppose X = ⊕{X_α : α < κ}, where ω ≤ κ ≤ 2^c and μ = sup{w(X_α) : α < κ} ≤ c. Then X condenses onto a separable space Y of weight at most λ = max{log(κ), μ}.

Proof Strategy:

  • Case λ = ω: Utilize the fact that the Hilbert cube I^ω can be decomposed into c homeomorphic copies, embedding each X_α into a different copy.
  • Case λ > ω:
    1. Select a countable dense subset D = {d_n : n < ω} in the Tychonoff cube I^λ
    2. Construct a projection π_E such that π_E↾D is injective
    3. Exploit the homogeneity of I^λ to decompose it into suitable closed sets
    4. For n < ω, embed X_n into the set S_n containing d_n
    5. For α ≥ ω, embed X_α into disjoint closed sets K_α
    6. The constructed image space Y contains D, hence is separable

2. Obstruction Result: Baire Space Restriction (Theorem 3.2)

Theorem 3.2: Let X = ⊕_{n<ω} X_n, where each X_n is σ-compact. Suppose X condenses onto a Baire space Y. Then:

  1. There exists n < ω such that X_n is somewhere homeomorphic to Y
  2. If each X_n is compact, then infinitely many n satisfy that X_n is somewhere homeomorphic to Y
  3. If Y is compact and each X_n is a continuum, then infinitely many n satisfy that X_n is homeomorphic to a clopen branch of Y

Proof Outline:

  • Utilize the Baire Category Theorem: In a complete metric space (or locally compact Hausdorff space), the union of countably many nowhere dense closed sets cannot be the entire space.
  • For (1): Write X_n as a union of countably many compact sets. By the Baire Category Theorem, the image of some compact set contains a non-empty open set of Y.
  • For (2): Recursive construction using the Baire Category Theorem to ensure infinitely many components are somewhere homeomorphic to Y.
  • For (3): Utilize Kuratowski's results on continuum decompositions to prove that the family of branches of Y forms an upper semicontinuous decomposition.

3. Counterexample Construction Strategy

Discrete Space Case (Section 4.1):

  • Consider the discrete space D(κ)
  • Introduce the set S of cardinalities of compact separable spaces: S = {|Y| : Y is a compact separable space}
  • Establish fundamental properties of S in ZFC:
    • (*) ω, c ∪ {2^κ : ω < κ ≤ 2^c} ⊂ S
    • (**) S is ω-closed
  • Under CH, using Parovichenko's theorem and results by Poór-Shelah, prove that there exist models where S = {ω, ω_1, λ = 2^{ω_1}}
  • This yields many cardinals κ satisfying c < κ < 2^c but κ ∉ S

Non-Discrete Space Case (Section 4.2):

  • Utilize Theorems 3.1 and 3.2; only need to construct nowhere separable compact spaces of weight at most c
  • Examples:
    • The Čech-Stone remainder of ω
    • Countable infinite products: (α+1)^ω, where α is an uncountable cardinal
    • First-countable compact linear order spaces

Topological Group Case (Section 4.3):

  • Proposition 4.1: The real line ℝ condenses onto a compact space but cannot condense onto a compact homeomorphic space
  • Key proof steps:
    1. ℝ condenses onto a "figure-eight" (Parhomenko's theorem)
    2. Suppose ℝ condenses onto a compact homeomorphic space X
    3. By the Baire Category Theorem, some closed interval −n, n has image with non-empty interior
    4. This implies X is locally homeomorphic to an open interval; by compactness and homogeneity, X is a metrizable 1-manifold
    5. Therefore X is homeomorphic to the circle S^1
    6. But a continuous bijection ℝ → S^1 cannot be injective (connectedness argument)
  • General Construction: For cardinality 2^τ (τ ≥ ω), consider the topological group G = ℤ × (S^1)^τ
    • G condenses onto a compact space (Parhomenko's theorem)
    • Suppose G condenses onto a compact homeomorphic space X
    • By Theorem 3.2(3), X has infinitely many clopen branches homeomorphic to (S^1)^τ
    • This contradicts compactness and homogeneity

Experimental Setup

Note: This is a pure mathematics theory paper with no computational experiments. All results are obtained through rigorous mathematical proofs.

Mathematical Tools and Techniques

  1. Set Theory: Cardinal arithmetic, forcing, constructible universe L
  2. Topology: Baire Category Theorem, Tychonoff cubes, projection mappings
  3. Topological Group Theory: Cardinal properties of compact topological groups (Comfort's theorem)
  4. Dimension Theory: Manifold classification theorems

Experimental Results

Main Theorems and Results

Significance of Theorem 3.1

This theorem provides sufficient conditions for topological sums to condense onto separable spaces, showing that under fairly general circumstances (κ ≤ 2^c, component weight ≤ c), condensation onto separable spaces is possible.

Applications of Theorem 3.2

This theorem provides tools for determining when condensation onto spaces with specific properties is impossible:

  • If all components of a topological sum are nowhere separable, it cannot condense onto a compact separable space
  • If a topological sum has infinitely many homeomorphic compact components, it cannot condense onto a compact homeomorphic space

Validity of Counterexamples

Counterexample to Question 2.7:

  • Simple Example: X = ⊕_{n<ω} Y_n, where each Y_n is a nowhere separable compact space (such as a Stone space)
  • By Theorem 3.1, X condenses onto a separable space
  • By Theorem 3.2(2), X cannot condense onto a compact separable space

Counterexample to Question 2.8:

  • Cardinality c: Topological group ℝ
  • Cardinality 2^τ: Topological group ℤ × (S^1)^τ
  • Both condense onto compact spaces but cannot condense onto compact topological groups

Set-Theoretic Consistency Results

Under the Continuum Hypothesis, using deep results by Poór-Shelah:

  • If there exists an inaccessible cardinal, one can construct CH models where S = {ω, ω_1, λ}, where λ = 2^{ω_1} is an arbitrary regular cardinal
  • This yields many cardinals κ (ω_1 < κ < 2^{ω_1}) such that D(κ) cannot condense onto a compact separable space

In the non-CH case:

  • Using Cohen forcing, one can construct models where S = ω, c ∪ {2^c}
  • This yields all cardinals κ (c < κ < 2^c) such that D(κ) cannot condense onto a compact separable space

Related Work

History of Condensation Theory

  1. Parhomenko 15 (1941): Proved that every locally compact non-compact space admits a compact condensation, a foundational result in condensation theory.
  2. Parovichenko 16 (1963): Under CH, proved that all compact spaces of weight ω_1 are quotients of D(ω), crucial for understanding cardinalities of separable compact spaces.
  3. Recent Work:
    • Belugin, Osipov, Pytkeev 2 (2021): Study compact condensations of Hausdorff spaces
    • Lipin, Osipov 13 (2022): Condensations onto σ-compact spaces
    • Osipov, Pytkeev 14 (2023): Condensations from metric spaces to Banach spaces

Set-Theoretic Foundations

  1. Kunen: Consistency results on cardinalities of separable compact spaces (see 9)
  2. Poór, Shelah 17 (2021): Complete characterization of the spectrum of branch cardinalities of Kurepa trees, equivalent to characterizing S

Topological Group Theory

  1. Comfort 3 (1984): Proved that cardinalities of compact topological groups must be of the form 2^τ
  2. Keller 11 (1931): Proved homogeneity of the Hilbert cube

Positioning of This Paper

This paper, by combining:

  • Condensation criteria for topological sums (Theorems 3.1, 3.2)
  • Constructions of nowhere separable spaces
  • Special properties of topological groups
  • Set-theoretic consistency results

systematically answers questions posed by Arhangel'skii and Buzyakova, revealing the essential difficulties in condensations preserving multiple properties.

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

  1. Complete Answer to Question 2.7:
    • There exist locally compact spaces that condense onto separable spaces but cannot condense onto compact separable spaces
    • Such examples can be topological sums ⊕_{n<ω} X_n, where X_n are nowhere separable compact spaces
  2. Complete Answer to the Compact Case of Question 2.8:
    • For each cardinal 2^τ (τ ≥ ω), there exists a locally compact topological group of this cardinality that condenses onto a compact space but cannot condense onto a compact topological group
    • Concrete example: ℤ × (S^1)^τ
  3. Theoretical Framework:
    • Theorems 3.1 and 3.2 provide systematic determination tools
    • Reveal the central role of the Baire Category Theorem in condensation theory

Limitations

  1. Unresolved Problem for Lindelöf Spaces: Question 3.3 remains open—for topological sums of Lindelöf spaces, do results analogous to Theorem 3.2 exist? Remark 3.4 indicates that certain conditions are necessary.
  2. Non-Compact Case: The non-compact case of Question 2.8 (condensation onto non-compact homeomorphic spaces) is not addressed in this paper.
  3. Constructivity: Counterexamples for discrete spaces depend on set-theoretic consistency results and are not absolute in ZFC.
  4. Optimality: Whether the weight bound λ = max{log(κ), μ} in Theorem 3.1 is optimal is not discussed.

Future Directions

  1. Question 3.3: Study condensation properties of topological sums of Lindelöf spaces
  2. Other Topological Properties: Investigate condensations preserving other properties, such as:
    • Paracompactness
    • Normality
    • Stronger forms of complete regularity
  3. Further Research on Topological Groups:
    • Non-compact homeomorphic space case
    • Other algebraic structures (semigroups, rings, etc.)
  4. Algorithmic and Computational Aspects: Although this paper is purely theoretical, constructive methods for condensations may have computational significance

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

  1. Importance of Problems:
    • Answers important open questions in the field
    • Reveals essential difficulties in condensation theory
    • Connects topology and set theory
  2. Technical Depth:
    • Clever application of the Baire Category Theorem to establish general criteria
    • Deep utilization of set-theoretic tools (forcing, constructible universe)
    • Ingenious counterexample construction for topological groups (using connectedness and homogeneity contradictions)
  3. Completeness of Results:
    • Both positive results (Theorem 3.1) and negative results (Theorem 3.2)
    • Systematic development from simple cases (discrete spaces) to complex cases (topological groups)
    • Comprehensive set-theoretic analysis (both CH and non-CH cases)
  4. Clarity of Exposition:
    • Clear structure, with distinct levels from preliminaries to main results
    • Detailed proofs with sufficient explanation of key steps
    • Rich examples aiding understanding of abstract concepts

Weaknesses

  1. Incompleteness in the Lindelöf Case:
    • Question 3.3 is posed but unresolved
    • Remark 3.4's counterexample demonstrates the subtlety of the problem, but no positive sufficient conditions are provided
  2. Dependence of Discrete Space Counterexamples:
    • Depends on large cardinal assumptions (inaccessible cardinals) or specific models
    • Not an absolute result in ZFC
    • While this reflects the essential difficulty of the problem, it limits the universality of the results
  3. Insufficient Quantitative Analysis:
    • Whether the weight bound in Theorem 3.1 is optimal is not discussed
    • Lower bounds on the number of components in topological sums are not explicitly stated
  4. Lack of Application Discussion:
    • As a pure theory paper, potential applications of the results are not discussed
    • The connection to weak topologies in functional analysis is mentioned only in the introduction

Impact

  1. Theoretical Contribution:
    • Complete answer to Arhangel'skii and Buzyakova's questions
    • Establishment of a systematic determination framework (Theorems 3.1 and 3.2)
    • Revelation of deep connections between condensation theory and set theory
  2. Methodological Contribution:
    • Systematic application of the Baire Category Theorem in condensation theory
    • Topological sum decomposition techniques potentially applicable to other problems
    • Integration of multiple mathematical branches (topology, set theory, topological groups)
  3. Subsequent Research:
    • Question 3.3 provides clear direction for future research
    • Methods may generalize to other topological properties
    • Set-theoretic techniques may apply to related problems
  4. Reproducibility:
    • All proofs are complete mathematical arguments
    • Results can be independently verified
    • No computational experiment reproducibility issues

Applicable Scenarios

  1. Theoretical Topology Research:
    • Study of topological refinement of spaces
    • Understanding relationships between different topological properties
    • Construction of counterexamples with specific properties
  2. Set Theory Research:
    • Study of cardinal properties
    • Applications of forcing
    • Construction of consistency results
  3. Functional Analysis:
    • Understanding relationships between weak and original topologies
    • Study of continuity under different topologies
  4. Teaching Purposes:
    • Application examples of the Baire Category Theorem
    • Properties of topological sums
    • Interdisciplinary connections between set theory and topology

Technical Highlights

Proof Technique in Theorem 3.2

The use of Kuratowski's upper semicontinuous decomposition theory in the proof of (3) is particularly elegant:

  • The image of a continuum is a branch
  • The family of branches forms an upper semicontinuous decomposition
  • The decomposition space is a countably compact Hausdorff space, hence has infinitely many isolated points
  • Isolated points correspond to clopen branches

This reasoning from continuous mappings to decomposition spaces exemplifies the depth of topology.

Connectedness Argument in Proposition 4.1

The argument that ℝ cannot condense onto S^1, while "elementary," is remarkably clever:

  • The image of an open interval must be connected
  • If the image is a half-open interval [s,t), take a point p in the preimage with f(p) = s
  • Then f((u,p)) and f((p,v)) both contain s, contradicting injectivity

This argument avoids algebraic topology tools (such as fundamental groups), demonstrating the power of point-set topology.

Deep Application of Set Theory

The use of Poór-Shelah's characterization of the spectrum of branch cardinalities of Kurepa trees to understand cardinalities of separable compact spaces exemplifies:

  • Deep connections between different mathematical branches
  • The power of set-theoretic tools in topological problems
  • The importance of consistency results

Key References

1 A. V. Arhangel'skii and R. Buzyakova, Better subtopologies, arXiv:2510.16254. 3 W. W. Comfort, Topological groups, Handbook of Set-Theoretic Topology, 1984. 15 A. S. Parhomenko, On continuous injections into compact spaces, 1941. 16 I. I. Parovichenko, Universal bicompact of weight ℵ, 1963. 17 M. Poór and S. Shelah, Characterization of the spectrum of branch cardinalities of Kurepa trees, Pacific J. Math. 2021.

Overall Assessment: This is a high-quality pure mathematics theory paper that, through establishing a systematic determination framework and constructing ingenious counterexamples, completely answers important open questions in the field. The paper demonstrates deep interdisciplinary connections between topology, set theory, and algebra, with methods of general significance. Although some results depend on set-theoretic consistency assumptions, this precisely reveals the essential difficulty of the problems. The paper makes important contributions to condensation theory and provides clear directions for subsequent research.